New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm ready to kiss and make up just as soon as this mad merry-go-round ceases but it will be very difficult for parents to forgive PPAG supporters if they delay the opening of the school. They could stop this nonsense tomorrow and give the money to a deserving charity. Their actions are only delaying the inevitable. It's time for a gracious acceptance of defeat and then we can all move on.

[Epykat]

It will be very difficult for some people to forgive being called a vacuous liar or a bitter old witch.

[Bob Jefferson]

Sticks and stones Epy. I've been called much worse.

[Epykat]

But you're a man, you can take it. We're just stupid wimmin, it hurts.....

[seanie]

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Harry Frankfurt

[Porty]

It will be very difficult for some people to forgive being called a vacuous liar or a bitter old witch.

There are indivdual conflicts that will perhaps never heal.

[Epykat]

It will be very difficult for some people to forgive being called a vacuous liar or a bitter old witch.

There are indivdual conflicts that will perhaps never heal.

I think you're absolutely right. This 'debate' was brought down to a personal level almost from day 1 - and by that I mean going back to the very first meetings - by all sorts of people, some more in the spotlight than others, and to expect that just to be forgotten is a bit optimistic.

[seanie]

Can't say I've encountered much in the way of animosity or angst, certainly not within the community at large. The active pro and anti camps have each had a consistent (and fairly small core) who've had almost 6 years to wind themselves up over what the other side are doing. But that'll be a couple of dozen people at most. They might not be sending each other Christmas cards anytime soon but that's not indicative of any great rift within the community. On the contrary, step back from the school issue and I think the sense of community has only strengthened in recent years. All the things organised by POD, PEDAL, BTOB, the Big Busk, the book festival, music festivals, the sailing club, the rowing; there are things that could be improved but Portobello's got so much going for it.

I can't imagine living anywhere else.

[Porty]

I think you're absolutely right. This 'debate' was brought down to a personal level.

There are two opposing sides and for one side it was always personal they didn't get "brought down " at all.

Most pro-schoolers and PFANS wanted a new school, not for themselves but for their kids, other kids, staff and the community at large, generations to come, for us its not personal.

The PPAG hardcore didn't want a school on the park for two reasons, they are NIMBYS and/or they hate everything the council does or tries to do, for them it was totally personal. A personal desire or objective, nothing more. Which is why when challenged, ridiculed or whatever.........they took it personally, they felt cruelly exposed because they were.

I do differentiate between the hardcore and the wider PPAG "group". In my view if the council are to get anywhere when trying to negotiate the dropping of the legal action they need to meet with as many of the group as they possibly can, to try and get a foothold by appealing to their decency. The half dozen or so hardcore are purely in it for themselves, its always been personal. They act like they are the community, they believe they speak for the community, which is where the idea of a community rift comes from, its utter rubbish.

[Bob Jefferson]

The misguided, the misled and the misanthropic. Did I miss anyone?

[Epykat]

So, you didn't have a personal problem with any of these people before they started campaigning about the school? I reckon it wouldn't have mattered what side they were on you would have been on the other.

Most pro-schoolers and PFANS wanted a new school, not for themselves but for their kids, other kids, staff and the community at large, generations to come, for us its not personal..

And that's very thoughtful of them, and they and you should all go to heaven, but If you are so confident that PPAG can't win then why not just let them get on with it? You have nothing to fear so why "challenge, ridicule or whatever....." anybody who isn't singing from your community spirited hymnsheet? If they do win, then you should have the decency to acknowledge the fact that they won because it was illegal for the Council to build on that land. It works both ways.

I do differentiate between the hardcore and the wider PPAG "group".

You don't differentiate between anybody. Anyone not in favour of the school gets the same treatment regardless of whether they are 'hardcore' or not, they are "challenged, ridiculed or whatever......" by the self righteous saviours of the poor suffering inmates of PHS. I don't want the school to go on the golfie, I've said that from the beginning, but I also resigned myself long ago to the fact that it will go there because the Council will put it there regardless of whether you lot jumped up and down naked in the playground every day for a week or PPAG baked Marilyne McLaren a cake - IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. But you haven't differentiated between me, people who have nothing to do with PPAG but don't want the golfie built on, and 'hardcore' PPAG so how does that work?

They act like they are the community, they believe they speak for the community, which is where the idea of a community rift comes from, its utter rubbish.

Which side are you talking about here? Not much in it as far as I can see. I can see why outsiders might think there's a community rift when some people are forever running to the papers with non stories about the 'enemy'. It smacks of childish tit for tat and only serves to make Portobello people look stupid.

[seanie]

I don't want the school to go on the golfie, I've said that from the beginning...

That's not actually true though, is it?

Marya: "Would you accept the two schools being built on the golf course Epykat if there was no housing (other than that being built on the old schools' sites)?"

Epykat:"Yes I would (although I'd prefer it just to be PHS with St. John's expanding onto the old PHS site)"

[seanie]

And of course there was this;

I haven't 'grudgingly accepted' anything! I've said from the beginning that I'm in support of the building of the High School (not schools) on the Park.

[Epykat]

I concede something I said 6 years ago....maybe I should have said 'almost from the beginning' - does that make you feel better? (that's a rhetorical question, I couldn't possibly say anything that could make you more excited than you were when you found that)

[seanie]

...If you are so confident that PPAG can't win then why not just let them get on with it?

Because even if they can't win, they can cause delay. They've already set the opening date back simply by lodging the petition. That legal precedents suggest they don't have a case just makes it all the more annoying.

[Bob Jefferson]

I also resigned myself long ago to the fact that it will go there because the Council will put it there regardless of whether you lot jumped up and down naked in the playground every day for a week or PPAG baked Marilyne McLaren a cake - IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

I don't understand that kind of cynicism/fatalism. If the majority didn't want the school on the park, then it wouldn't be going there. What is "the Council" at the end of the day? It's just a bunch of elected councillors, not the Evil Empire. Collectively, WE voted for them. They represent US and act upon OUR wishes. Councillors don't like to make unpopular decisions and without PFANS and the demonstrable support for the new school on the park, it wouldn't be happening.

[seanie]

I concede something I said 6 years ago....maybe I should have said 'almost from the beginning' - does that make you feel better? (that's a rhetorical question, I couldn't possibly say anything that could make you more excited than you were when you found that)

I refer to my earlier post;

For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

[Bob Jefferson]

I differentiate between the hardcore and the wider PPAG support. My remark about 'the misguided, the misled and the misanthropic' was flippant but contains some germ of truth. Certainly, a lot of the golfing community have been misled by PPAG about the course being under threat of development along with many other 'green' types who have only read PPAG propaganda and don't know the true facts. Misguided? I think some people see this as an issue simply of 'saving green space'. A noble aspiration to be sure, but not an end in itself. And for some, it is clearly about a perceived threat to the value of their properties. And beyond that, there are one or two who, I'm afraid, can only be described as bonkers. But these are generalisations and each has their own individual reasons for opposing the school on the park. They are entitled to their opinions, but if they wish to promote their ideas through a public forum, then they must expect to be challenged. PPAG lost the argument on this forum very early on and left en masse and in a huff, in some cases deleting their posts behind them, and then complained that they had been bullied. The truth is that it was their arguments that were ridiculed, not them personally. They claimed to represent the majority yet that was proven to be false time and time again. They resorted to lies and scaremongering and lost any credibility they may have once had. Now it's over, they have lost and the school will go ahead, but still they don't have the good grace to accept defeat. Now it's just spoiling tactics, bitterness and bile. It doesn't have to be this way - they can stop this tomorrow.

[seanie]

If they do win, then you should have the decency to acknowledge the fact that they won because it was illegal for the Council to build on that land.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006CSOH48.html

"the petitioners wish to use the land for the construction of two schools on a shared site with shared facilities. Both areas of ground form part of the petitioners' common good."

North Lanarkshire wanted to build two schools on parks forming part of the Common Good and went to court to seek permission. The Court said...

"...the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases. It follows that section 75(2) has no application. In these circumstances I refused the prayers of the petitions as unnecessary."

The Court held the petition was uneccessary.

Since the land would still be owned by the Council, and used to the benefit of the community, the Court decided that the Council didn't even need to seek permission. The proposal was perfectly legal as far as the courts were concerned.

[Makaveli]

If people think that blocking the building of a SCHOOL is community spirited then I feel a bit embarrassed for them - regardless of whether it is on your doorstep or not I think the loss of Porty Park is for the greater good.

It is not as if it is the only park in the area.

[portygeoff]

...If you are so confident that PPAG can't win then why not just let them get on with it?

Because even if they can't win, they can cause delay. They've already set the opening date back simply by lodging the petition. That legal precedents suggest they don't have a case just makes it all the more annoying.

Exactly. There is a legal precedent for this build. All that PPAG are doing is delaying the new build. All they are doing is disrupting the start of a new school in a new school year for the youngsters on Portobello. PPAG have been using this land issue from the start, why start legal proceedings at this late stage? They were challenged time and time again to submit a legal challenge but they chose not to. Instead they wait to the last minute to do something as a spoiler. Shame on PPAG; you lost the argument, lost the support of the community and you are about to loose the money of your dwindling band of supporters. Shame on you.

[Porty]

Well said PG.

[Porty]

So, you didn't have a personal problem with any of these people before they started campaigning about the school? ".

No I had no personal issues, in fact I had only met two or maybe 3 of those involved in early day PPAG. Two were my neighbours. I started having issues when they tried to use the PCATS funds to campaign against housing on the scottish power site. It had nothing to do with the school. Although I'm fairly sure they would have been running around playing the "personal" card to anyone that would listen.

I maintain that it was not personal, I was unhappy about conduct not the people.

I'm not interested in going over that ground but It was unpleasant being the lone voice speaking out against the porty planning "mafia". I had no idea what I was getting into. I'm far from alone these days, as they are totally rumbled. I don't think we will see another Bellfield Lane scenario any time soon. I certainly hope not.

"You don't differentiate between anybody. Anyone not in favour of the school gets the same treatment regardless

Yes I have been consisitent, something that eluded PPAG. I do differentiate, believe me. I do not consider you to be one of of the PPAG hardcore.

Which side are you talking about here? "

Both sides, see above.

Not much in it as far as I can see. I can see why outsiders might think there's a community rift when some people are forever running to the papers with non stories about the 'enemy'. It smacks of childish tit for tat and only serves to make Portobello people look stupid."

What did you make of Jean Douglas' letter in the Evening News where she stated that mortgage brokers stood to make financial gain from the new school proposaL? One of several public statements from members of her family which were clearly designed to make the general public think that iI was pro-school for monetary gain? A cynical, malicious attempt to malign me.

Should I forgive them?

To me, it merely served to illustrate the point I made above. Jean simply couldn't grasp that someone can be passionate about a cause when they are not going to directly benefit in some way. It is probably beyond her ken and her mindset. For her/them it is a personal objective, they are in it for themselves, so why wouldn't everybody else be the same? Surely there must be something in this for Mr McIntyre?

[seanie]

Couple of letters in the Evening News today. Both fairly predictable save for one small detail;

The council can still go to court to ask for clarification.

Given PPAG have lodged a petition with the Court of Session, with an initial hearing set for December 9th, it's a bit odd to suggest the Council go to court. They'll be there on the 9th after all.

Unless...PPAG know they can't afford a court case and are hoping the Council takes itself to court on their behalf.

[seanie]

And Save Porty Park says;

PPAG went to Edinburgh council over a year ago asking them to lodge a joint petition with us to establish whether or not they had a legal right to build on Portobello Park. We made them aware that we had the opinion of a prominent QC that they did not. The council declined and progressed their plans with this known risk. Our legal action could not be lodged until planning permission was granted, hence the timing. It's unclear whether recent reports are ill informed or intentionally misguiding.

A joint petition? Why on earth would the Council lodge a joint petition against their own QC advice? Why would PPAG expect them to?

Unless...PPAG knew they couldn't afford a court case and were hoping the Council took itself to court on their behalf.

[seanie]

As to...

Our legal action could not be lodged until planning permission was granted, hence the timing.

That's nonsense. As PPAG themselves bitterly complained, the planning process couldn't really address the choice of site, only the chosen site in terms of planning. If their argument is that the choice of site itself is incompatible with its Common Good status, then that is an argument that could've been taken to the Court of Session at any point since December 2006.

Because that's when the site itself was chosen.

[Epykat]

What is "the Council" at the end of the day? It's just a bunch of elected councillors, not the Evil Empire. Collectively, WE voted for them. They represent US and act upon OUR wishes.

Anybody see the programme last night about corrupt Council officials?

[seanie]

A dozen or so dodgy people in one small department doesn't render the entire Council Corrupt.

[Puerto bella]

Are you guys on a 'PR/ Defend at all costs' retainer for CEC or something? One does wonder at times?

Yes Epy, saw the programme - frightening for all those people out there who are bearing the cost of this.

Probably one of the biggest fraud/ corruption cases a Scottish local authority has been involved in.

[seanie]

What relatively few corruption cases do occur in Local Authorities generally occur at low level; rogue Planning or Building Control officers, or a bit of nepotism. But it tends to be low level because there's simply too much scrutiny, and too many people involved, for it to go unnoticed at any higher level. Things seem to have gone badly wrong in the Building Conservation Department, and there's probably a failure of oversight. But it's a staggering leap to conclude the council as a whole is a hotbed of corruption. That's unfeasible if simply down to the level of bureaucracy.

[seanie]

People go on about planning and 'brown envelopes' but seriously, think what that would involve.

You might have a planning officer handling a case, with a line manager overseeing, all under higher scrutiny from the head of planning. And for anything major it goes before a Committee of what? A dozen Cllrs from different parties?

How would you even go about doing that?

[Puerto bella]

I'm saving what would be answers to your last two posts for my book, i'm afraid. 17 years in local govt Planning depts in 3 councils and I thought i'd seen and heard it all but was flabberghasted at the contents of that programme and the scale of the fraud. Anyone who doesn't believe that it goes on must live in a lovely bubble.

[seanie]

Does that not support my point?

17 years in local government and you were flabberghasted?

So the exception rather than the rule, surely?

[rmolehusband]

Are you guys on a 'PR/ Defend at all costs' retainer for CEC or something? One does wonder at times?

Awe, go easy. I'm guessing Sean is just envisioning the next wave of nonsense about the new school that this whole CEC corruption thing will bring in from the Park Avenue party poopers.

I missed the program, worth catching on iPlayer?

As for it's relevance to the school, the whole process seemed pretty open and transparent to me so I very much doubt it's relevant. Why would anyone have to pay officials/councillors to recommend/accept proposals that have the firm backing of the community anyway? Backhanders are more common when the plans are going against public opinion.

[Puerto bella]

Does that not support my point?

17 years in local government and you were flabberghasted?

So the exception rather than the rule, surely?

My gast was flabbered by the sheer extent of it all in Edinburgh. It appeared to be endemic.

Programme is available on catch up on demand: Tue 20th 10.35pm BBC1 Investigates